Critical Analysis of Corporate Entrepreneurship at Google, Inc.

This report presents a critical analysis of corporate entrepreneurship, focusing on Google Inc. The study examines Google's innovative strategies, including its "70/20/10" model and "launch and iterate" approach, within the context of daily innovation. It identifies key challenges such as time management issues, resistance to change, rigid organizational structures, and miscommunication. Furthermore, the report explores barriers like long-term planning, avoiding risks, and the use of past experiences in decision-making, while also suggesting strategies to overcome these, such as establishing a reliable code of conduct, effective time management, and transparent communication. By addressing these aspects, the report offers insights into how Google has become a globally recognized brand through its entrepreneurial approach.

Entrepreneurship and
Innovation

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1
OPTION B: CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF REAL LIFE CASES OF “CORPORATE
ENTREPRENEURSHIP” IN CONTEXT OF GOOGLE, INC.......................................................2
CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................5
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................7

INTRODUCTION
Entrepreneurs are the key members to introduce new and revolutionary ideas into real
life. It is important to note that entrepreneurship and innovation are very important in today's
scenario for any organisation. Knowledge creation is another factor to summarise the major
impact of innovation in company (Alsos, Carter and Ljunggren, 2011). Another crucial role can
be seen as a part of generating sustainable, social, technological, economic and organisational
development. For getting a more clear view of entrepreneurship and innovation, it is considered
that first step should include the idea of exploring right business opportunity. This is followed by
testing the feasibility of proposed plan by conducting a market research and learning that what is
required to make idea of business into a profitable venture. Under head of “corporate
entrepreneurship”, the chosen case study is related to corporate entrepreneurship and innovation
at Google, Inc. All innovative techniques used and implemented by Google, Inc. are based on
every day innovation criteria. Therefore they do not believe in working as per situation arises. Its
policies like “Innovation time off” and “70/20/10” innovation model allowed employees to work
in the most effective manner on their preferred project with full freedom.
Background of Case 1
Earlier Google, Inc. was mainly recognised for its ultimate dominance in the field of
internet search but in the current era, they are now more into innovation. Gaining a remarkable
position in the market by focusing on research and development is their basic key of success
(Barringer, 2012). Discussing about their unique attempt in innovation, they have introduced
“launch and iterate”. As a result, users can now access through many innovative applications.
Google launched a new technology known as “PageRank” which explains the importance of
website by evaluating number of other pages linked to it. 'www.google.com’ was Google’s
primary domain registered in September 1997 and incorporated in the year 1998. Main mission
of Google was to organise all possible world’s information and make it universally reachable to
every person (Bosma and Levie, 2010).
1

OPTION B: CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF REAL LIFE CASES OF
“CORPORATE ENTREPRENEURSHIP” IN CONTEXT OF GOOGLE,
INC.
Corporate entrepreneurship refers to the concept of generating new ideas within
organisation. It is a process by which groups within an established company introduce and
manage new business ideas. It is divided into for major parts, ( corporate venturing),
(Intrapreneuring), (Organisational transformation), (industry rule breaking). This leads to
develop profitability and competitive position of existing business. In context of Google, it is
found that there are several aspects of their working pattern which are based on the utilisation of
concept of corporate entrepreneurship. Major obstacles faced by Google includes controversy,
poor management of time, resistance to change, rigid organisational structure,
miscommunication in organisation and existing process.
1- Avoiding controversy: - Entrepreneurs who aim for long run sustainability in the market
need to focus on the steps taken by their competitors. This is because; in the competitive market,
every company tries to move forward and gain maximum profit. Therefore, it is important for the
entrepreneur to keep an eye on their competitors (Bruton, Ahlstrom and Li, 2010). By doing this,
they can avoid chances of being caught in any controversial case. A positive image of company
is also important for sustaining in the market for longer span of time. Profitability as well as
market share of enterprise depends upon what image they portray in front of its target customers
(Onetti and et. al., 2012). So, in corporate entrepreneurship it is important to consider all
parameters of controversies and as far as Google is concerned about same, they have always
planned their ideas in such a way that their expected controversies can be reduced to a high
extent. They have taken all measures which are beneficial in order to keep company away from
all controversies (Carraher and Paridon, 2015).
2- Poor management of time- It is one of the most important factors that is needed to be taken
into consideration. Any corporate entity that is working for some particular purpose should know
its target time in which entire operations will be performed and completed. Google can face this
trouble of time management which will surely hinder the desired output of company. For this
perspective, corporate entrepreneurship management needs to focus on time allotted for
performing business operations in the most effective manner. This will result in attaining an
absolute objective of company (Carsrud and Brännback, 2011).
2

3- Resistance to change- This is another major issue that is encountered in almost every
organisation. This concept simply conveys an idea behind introduction of any change in the
working environment. These changes are probably not accepted by the employees of any
company. Reason can be the fear of losing job as employees are settled with their traditional way
of working (Martin, McNally and Kay, 2013). When they get to know about any change in their
working environment then they might have a feeling of anxiety what will happen when they
would not be able to adjust themselves in the new aspect of working style. Google has taken
several steps in order to deal with this concept of resistance to change (Chittithaworn and et. al.,
2011).
4- Rigid organisational structure- Flow of information in any corporate unit depends upon the
type of structure they are following in particular. It is important that a company follows some
easy way of delivering information throughout the organisation. This makes employees of
Google to perform their tasks in the most effective manner. They are not bounded by any
structural limitations and therefore, they can experience a working pattern which is highly
feasible in adaptation. Thus, the results gained are highly effective (Dacin, Dacin and Matear,
2010).
5- Miscommunication in organisation- Whole process of any working unit is affected by
information which is flowing in the firm. Sometimes, bad assumptions regarding any project and
inappropriate information create misunderstanding. This affects the entire objective of Google.
For reducing this, cited company needs to make sure about the way information should be
conveyed in different department of organisation. Following set pattern of flow of information
will surely help business to simplify their operations (Defourny and Nyssens, 2010). Google has
created a transparent working style, therefore, chances of miscommunication within organisation
decrease to a high extent.
Major barriers to corporate entrepreneurship are given below:-
1. Planning for long term- If planning is done on the bases of its time period, then this may
lead to produce ineffective goals. Chances of high failure cost increases.
2. Avoiding steps that risk the root business- It is important to not deviate from the base
business. This is because base operations are a key of success. New operations will
only act like a new opportunity.
3

3. Judgement on the bases of prior experience- This is major tendency that makes wrong
perception about decision making. Therefore it is important to take decisions on the
bases of current scenario.
4. Support incompatible individual- This will lead to create misconception among
employees. Chances of loosing creative mind at work place will increase. Therefore, it
is suggested that organisation should support those who are actually performing their
best.
Major strategies to overcome barriers
There are many strategies by which barriers to corporate entrepreneurship can be
overcome. Some of these strategies are like:
Set a reliable code of conduct- To deal with any controversy related to company, it is
important for the organisation to be fair in their operations. This can be achieved when Google
would not leave any loophole from their side. They have to be more clear about what set of
format they are following to conduct the operations of their business (Leitch, Hill and Neergaard,
2010). In case cited company get stuck in any controversy, they should always be ready with a
true statement. This is the way they can deal with any kind of controversy take place in the
organisation (Drucker, 2014).
A good time management- As discussed earlier that value of time in any organisation is
directly connected to their desired output, for attaining a clear vision of what a company wants
from established business, they need to be more specific about expected results that are supposed
to achieved by the firm within a stipulated time period (Kirzner, 2015). This simply indicates
that task should be divided on the basis of time allotted and their periodical review should also
be there. In short, time management is very important in context of attaining the best results for
organisation.
Conveying positive impact of resistance to change- As time passes, it brings some
major changes in the market. These changes mainly include technological developments. For
surviving in the era of technology, it is important for any business unit to be updated with new
features and innovations (Durst and Runar Edvardsson, 2012). Now, here the question arises that
how these changes should be introduced in company. This can be easily accepted by every
working member. For this purpose, Google first needs to discuss the idea of any changes with
their employees before implementing the same in reality. All working people should be very well
4

aware about what organisation is planning to do. This is how many feedback can be collected
and similarly importance of adopting any new techniques can also be discussed with employees
(Jones and Rowley, 2011).
Ensuring simple organisational structure- A complex structure of working hinders the
effectiveness of results. Therefore, it is important for Google to apply an easy and simple
organisational structure. This ensures that there should be no rigidity in working structure
resulting in achieving the best possible results. This structure is responsible for simplifying
operations in the most feasible manner (Ebert and et. al., 2014).
Transparent communication- For getting a clear view of what a company needs to do
in order to meet their goals, it is important that there has to be transparency in the working areas
of any business entity. This results in conveying right messages to correct people at proper time
in the organisation. Google follows this idea to minimize the risk of miscommunication in firm.
If there will be no miscommunication then target of company can be achieved at the right time.
Therefore, both market share and profit will be there.
For resolving barriers of corporate entrepreneurship
1- planning should be done on the bases of core objective of the company. This will result in
producing effective results.
2. Root business should be considered as the the most important part of organisation. New
opportunities must be avail in order to get more sustainability in the market but this should not
hamper the effectiveness of base business.
3. Judgement should be made as per current requirement. Decisions on the bases of past
experience will only mislead to main goal of the company.
4. Management should give credit to those who are actually deserve it. This will boost
confidence among employee to work even more harder.
CONCLUSION
So far in this report, the taken real life case of “corporate entrepreneurship” is Google,
Inc. Under the case of this company, it has been observed that now, this organisation is totally
focusing on innovation techniques but earlier they were only in the area of internet search. They
have adopted many techniques of innovation namely, “70/20/10” innovation model, “innovation
5

time off”, launch and “iterate”. They have set their operational strategies in such a way that
innovation criteria is followed on daily basis. Under this, there are basically seven barriers
encountered by cited company. These are avoiding controversy, poor management of time and
resistance to change, rigid organisation structure and miscommunication in organisation along
with existing process used and the size of company. In this entire report, there was a clear view
of what a corporate entrepreneurship is all about. This is the reason, Google is the most known
brand and having its reach in all over the world. In the coming future, they are planning to come
up with more effective and efficient innovation so that people can have access to best of what is
being delivered that will surely change the face of world.
6

REFERENCES
Books and journals
Alsos, G. A., Carter, S. and Ljunggren, E. eds., 2011.The handbook of research on
entrepreneurship in agriculture and rural development. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Awogbenle, A. C. and Iwuamadi, K. C., 2010. Youth unemployment: Entrepreneurship
development programme as an intervention mechanism. African Journal of Business
Management. 4(6). p.831.
Barringer, B., 2012. Entrepreneurship: Successfully Launching New Ventures, (2012).
Bosma, N. S. and Levie, J., 2010. Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2009 Executive Report.
Bruton, G. D., Ahlstrom, D. and Li, H. L., 2010. Institutional theory and entrepreneurship: where
are we now and where do we need to move in the future?. Entrepreneurship theory and
practice. 34(3). pp.421-440.
Carraher, S. M. and Paridon, T. J., 2015. Entrepreneurship journal rankings across the discipline.
Journal of Small Business Strategy. 19(2). pp.89-98.
Carsrud, A. and Brännback, M., 2011. Entrepreneurial motivations: what do we still need to
know?. Journal of Small Business Management. 49(1). pp.9-26.
Chittithaworn, C and et.al., 2011. Factors affecting business success of small & medium
enterprises (SMEs) in Thailand. Asian Social Science. 7(5). p.180.
Dacin, P. A., Dacin, M. T. and Matear, M., 2010. Social entrepreneurship: Why we don't need a
new theory and how we move forward from here. The academy of management
perspectives. 24(3). pp.37-57.
Defourny, J. and Nyssens, M., 2010. Conceptions of social enterprise and social entrepreneurship
in Europe and the United States: Convergences and divergences. Journal of social
entrepreneurship. 1(1). pp.32-53.
Dennis Jr, W. J., 2011. Entrepreneurship, small business and public policy levers. Journal of
Small Business Management. 49(1). pp. 92-106.
Drucker, P., 2014. Innovation and entrepreneurship. Routledge.
Durst, S. and Runar Edvardsson, I., 2012. Knowledge management in SMEs: a literature review.
Journal of Knowledge Management. 16(6). pp. 879-903.
Ebert, R. J. and et.al., 2014. Business essentials. Pearson Education Canada.
Fayolle, A., 2013. Personal views on the future of entrepreneurship education. Entrepreneurship
& Regional Development. 25(7-8). pp. 692-701.
7

George, G. and Bock, A. J., 2011. The business model in practice and its implications for
entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship theory and practice. 35(1). pp. 83-111.
Herrington, M. and et.al., 2010. Tracking entrepreneurship in South Africa: a GEM perspective.
Graduate School of Business, University of Cape Town.
Jones, R. and Rowley, J., 2011. Entrepreneurial marketing in small businesses: A conceptual
exploration. International Small Business Journal. 29(1). pp. 25-36.
Kirzner, I. M., 2015. Competition and entrepreneurship. University of Chicago press.
Leitch, C., Hill, F. and Neergaard, H., 2010. Entrepreneurial and business growth and the quest
for a “comprehensive theory”: tilting at windmills?. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice. 34(2). pp. 249-260.
Martin, B. C., McNally, J. J. and Kay, M. J., 2013. Examining the formation of human capital in
entrepreneurship: A meta-analysis of entrepreneurship education outcomes. Journal of
Business Venturing. 28(2). pp. 211-224.
Onetti, A. and et.al., 2012. Internationalization, innovation and entrepreneurship: business
models for new technology-based firms. Journal of Management & Governance. 16(3).
pp. 337-368.
Online
Business and entrepreneurship skills and experience. 2013. [Online]. Available through:
<https://www.innovationpolicyplatform.org/content/business-and-entrepreneurship-
skills-and-experience>. [Accessed on 14th June 2017].
Infographic: Why Business Growth Is Essential To Great Britain. 2016. [Online]. Available
through: <http://www.boostcapital.co.uk/business-growth-uk-infographic/>. [Accessed
on 14th June 2017].
8